MontanaHawk05 wrote:Some people would trade Russell Wilson if it meant getting us a good draft pick.

Yes because Baldwin's (the 4th WR on the depth chart) value to this team is the same as our rookie pro-bowl QB making barely anything (NFL standards). Nice comparison...

Last edited by Hawkfan77 on Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

GREEDY PUNK PAUL ALLEN, THIS LOSS IS ON YOU."I don't give a crap WHAT you gotta pay, Kam is worth it and I don't want to lose a shot at another SB cuz you - a freaking BILLIONAIRE, are cheapskating Kam over a freaking $900,000.You cheapskate." SalishHawkFan SEP 13, 2015 1:47 PM

Hawkfan77 wrote:This seems to be a case in fans overvaluing their own players. I would LOVE it if we could get a 4th for Baldwin but that might be a stretch. Honestly, Badlwin is good-ish value for us as a 4th, but way better value to us if we could trade him for a 4th round pick.

Baldwin's rookie year, he way out produced his UDFA status, but last year? He was just a guy, if that.

Doug Baldwin – 29 catches, 366 yards, 3 TDsAll this in an injured season with a reduced role and a rookie quarterback.26 wide receivers have been drafted in the 4th round in the past 5 years. Doug Baldwin outproduced 23 of them. Two of the three that outproduced him are their teams number 1 receiver, and the third (Shorts), outproduced the so called “number 1” (Blackmon).

Clearly he has better value than a 4th round pick.

Why would you assume that if Baldwin were traded for a 4th round pick that we would automatically draft a WR? Who said that?

GREEDY PUNK PAUL ALLEN, THIS LOSS IS ON YOU."I don't give a crap WHAT you gotta pay, Kam is worth it and I don't want to lose a shot at another SB cuz you - a freaking BILLIONAIRE, are cheapskating Kam over a freaking $900,000.You cheapskate." SalishHawkFan SEP 13, 2015 1:47 PM

T-Sizzle wrote:Sorry, but I don't see why logically you could possibly feel the #4 WR on the depth chart would be featured heavily. That makes ZERO sense.

Harvin, Rice, and Tate have combined for 13 seasons in the NFL and only four of those have been full 16 game seasons. Chances are good that at least one of them will be banged up for a few games this year. Also, elite QBs tend to spread the ball around to more than just a couple targets. Denver and New England each had 5 players with at least 40 receptions in 2012. New Orleans had four with 65+ receptions and another with 39. Green Bay had four with 49+ receptions not including Jennings with 36 in 8 games.

CurryStopstheRuns wrote:Doug Baldwin dropped the game winner against the Cardinals in week one. That catch would have given us the #2 seed and homefield.

The season isn't lost in week 1. We had 15 other opportunities to get homefield advantage. Russell Wilson threw three interceptions against the Rams. Maybe we should trade him.

He also caught a 24 yard TD and a 50 yard pass in the same drive against New England to give us 74 of our 85 yards and a TD in a game we won by a point.He also caught a 12 yard pass on 3rd and 10 against the Bears in overtime which gave us 1st and 10 on the Chicago 13 and gave Rice the opportunity to win the game.

Baldwin was also the victim of our daft penalties at least once last year, most notable a 49 yard pass wiped out by a McCoy penalty. Take that into account and you have a 30 reception 400 yard season. Not magnificient, but for a guy hampered with injuries in a run-first offense where the leading receiver managed a paltry 50 catches (which didn't crack the top 50 WRs for receptions), it's not too bad either.

Hawkfan77 wrote:Why would you assume that if Baldwin were traded for a 4th round pick that we would automatically draft a WR? Who said that?

That's not the point. What do you value players on? Production and future potential. Baldwin produced better than 88% of receivers drafted in the 4th round over the past 5 years. He's 24 years old and has plenty of future potential.So how do you value him as a 4th round pick? By how 4th round outside linebackers produce? Or by guessing?

This is absolutely senseless. The last decade we've struggled to have a decent receiving corps, everyone spent the entirety of last season saying we needed to draft a receiver... but only so that we could get rid of one? Not the expensive one, but the cheapest one. Despite eerily similar production over the last 2 seasons (82 catches, 1232 yards, 9 TDs compared to 80 catches, 1154 yards, 7 TDs).

Would you accept a 4th round pick for the older, more injury prone, more expensive Sidney Rice?

MontanaHawk05 wrote:Some people would trade Russell Wilson if it meant getting us a good draft pick.

Yes because Baldwin's (the 4th WR on the depth chart) value to this team is the same as our rookie pro-bowl QB making barely anything (NFL standards). Nice comparison...

Did you hear that?

...

It was the sound of my sarcasm whooshing right over your head.

Whooosh...

You got me!

GREEDY PUNK PAUL ALLEN, THIS LOSS IS ON YOU."I don't give a crap WHAT you gotta pay, Kam is worth it and I don't want to lose a shot at another SB cuz you - a freaking BILLIONAIRE, are cheapskating Kam over a freaking $900,000.You cheapskate." SalishHawkFan SEP 13, 2015 1:47 PM

Baldwin is just the sort of guy that will let us shred a team that doesn't have a good nickel corner. Harvin in the backfield, Rice wide left, Tate wide right, Baldwin in the slot. Somebody is open.

He is solid, solid depth at the WR position too. You don't trade a guy like that who is cheap unless you think you have 0 chance of retaining him as an free agent after the season and you can get a good value for him (I think Doug is a FA after next year).

I just don't see the impetus behind a trade unless there is an amazing player we need coming from the Colts. Trading for a draft pick at this point seems silly. We don't need more draft capital, we're already looking at drafting mostly camp fodder hoping for a diamond in the rough. What good is another 4th round pick? I'd be more interested in a 2014 3rd, or a 2015 2nd or something.

Doug Baldwin took a hit to the head when he was younger and now can't remember how to drop a football. - SomersetHawk

It's kind of funny as people line up on two sides of an issue like this. I equate it to the argument about throwing games to get better draft position.

One camp thinks of Baldwin as an important contributor to the offense, more valuable to us than to other teams and unlikely to draw trade interest strong enough to make trading him a good deal.

The other side values deals and trades and player moves more than wins, apparently. To them, a player like Baldwin is more a bargaining chip, someone whose trade value may never be higher that we should move for his off the field value. Just as some people focus heavily on the draft and everything seems to bend towards that day in April, some people consider the games more important and winning the most important thing.

From my point of view, a lot of people just want trades like this to happen, because they seem to get more out of player moves and drafting than they do out of the games themselves. I don't understand it, really. IMHO, Baldwin is too valuable to trade off just for the joy of moving players. We won't get enough in exchange to make sense to me. The goal is to keep the team together, not continually churning the roster any more than necessary.

Talent can get you to the playoffs.It takes character to win when you get there.SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS

sutz wrote:It's kind of funny as people line up on two sides of an issue like this. I equate it to the argument about throwing games to get better draft position.

One camp thinks of Baldwin as an important contributor to the offense, more valuable to us than to other teams and unlikely to draw trade interest strong enough to make trading him a good deal.

The other side values deals and trades and player moves more than wins, apparently. To them, a player like Baldwin is more a bargaining chip, someone whose trade value may never be higher that we should move for his off the field value. Just as some people focus heavily on the draft and everything seems to bend towards that day in April, some people consider the games more important and winning the most important thing.

From my point of view, a lot of people just want trades like this to happen, because they seem to get more out of player moves and drafting than they do out of the games themselves. I don't understand it, really. IMHO, Baldwin is too valuable to trade off just for the joy of moving players. We won't get enough in exchange to make sense to me. The goal is to keep the team together, not continually churning the roster any more than necessary.

sutz wrote:It's kind of funny as people line up on two sides of an issue like this. I equate it to the argument about throwing games to get better draft position.

One camp thinks of Baldwin as an important contributor to the offense, more valuable to us than to other teams and unlikely to draw trade interest strong enough to make trading him a good deal.

The other side values deals and trades and player moves more than wins, apparently. To them, a player like Baldwin is more a bargaining chip, someone whose trade value may never be higher that we should move for his off the field value. Just as some people focus heavily on the draft and everything seems to bend towards that day in April, some people consider the games more important and winning the most important thing.

From my point of view, a lot of people just want trades like this to happen, because they seem to get more out of player moves and drafting than they do out of the games themselves. I don't understand it, really. IMHO, Baldwin is too valuable to trade off just for the joy of moving players. We won't get enough in exchange to make sense to me. The goal is to keep the team together, not continually churning the roster any more than necessary.

You are very short-sighted.

Opinions vary.

Talent can get you to the playoffs.It takes character to win when you get there.SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS

sutz wrote:It's kind of funny as people line up on two sides of an issue like this. I equate it to the argument about throwing games to get better draft position.

One camp thinks of Baldwin as an important contributor to the offense, more valuable to us than to other teams and unlikely to draw trade interest strong enough to make trading him a good deal.

The other side values deals and trades and player moves more than wins, apparently. To them, a player like Baldwin is more a bargaining chip, someone whose trade value may never be higher that we should move for his off the field value. Just as some people focus heavily on the draft and everything seems to bend towards that day in April, some people consider the games more important and winning the most important thing.

From my point of view, a lot of people just want trades like this to happen, because they seem to get more out of player moves and drafting than they do out of the games themselves. I don't understand it, really. IMHO, Baldwin is too valuable to trade off just for the joy of moving players. We won't get enough in exchange to make sense to me. The goal is to keep the team together, not continually churning the roster any more than necessary.

You are very short-sighted.

Funnily enough that's exactly what I think of your idea to trade Baldwin for a draft pick. And not exactly a 1st or 2nd rounder, but a 4th rounder aka the first "backup" round, where you hope the players you draft make the team as backups, and if they make it as a starter you've "hit".And whilst before I listed all WRs that have been taken in the past 5 years, I thought I'd use the last 3 years for this one since they're Pete Carroll and John Schneider selections.

Walter ThurmondEJ WilsonKris DurhamKJ WrightRobert TurbinJaye Howard

Those are the 6 picks they've made in the 4th round.1 starter. 1 perennially injured cornerback. 2 backups. 2 players no longer with the team.

That's the success rate of arguably the best drafting FO over the last 3 years in the 4th round. And you want to give up a proven commodity to roll the dice and hope we get a KJ Wright again?

sutz wrote:It's kind of funny as people line up on two sides of an issue like this. I equate it to the argument about throwing games to get better draft position.

One camp thinks of Baldwin as an important contributor to the offense, more valuable to us than to other teams and unlikely to draw trade interest strong enough to make trading him a good deal.

The other side values deals and trades and player moves more than wins, apparently. To them, a player like Baldwin is more a bargaining chip, someone whose trade value may never be higher that we should move for his off the field value. Just as some people focus heavily on the draft and everything seems to bend towards that day in April, some people consider the games more important and winning the most important thing.

From my point of view, a lot of people just want trades like this to happen, because they seem to get more out of player moves and drafting than they do out of the games themselves. I don't understand it, really. IMHO, Baldwin is too valuable to trade off just for the joy of moving players. We won't get enough in exchange to make sense to me. The goal is to keep the team together, not continually churning the roster any more than necessary.

You are very short-sighted.

Funnily enough that's exactly what I think of your idea to trade Baldwin for a draft pick. And not exactly a 1st or 2nd rounder, but a 4th rounder aka the first "backup" round, where you hope the players you draft make the team as backups, and if they make it as a starter you've "hit".And whilst before I listed all WRs that have been taken in the past 5 years, I thought I'd use the last 3 years for this one since they're Pete Carroll and John Schneider selections.

Walter ThurmondEJ WilsonKris DurhamKJ WrightRobert TurbinJaye Howard

Those are the 6 picks they've made in the 4th round.1 starter. 1 perennially injured cornerback. 2 backups. 2 players no longer with the team.

That's the success rate of arguably the best drafting FO over the last 3 years in the 4th round. And you want to give up a proven commodity to roll the dice and hope we get a KJ Wright again?

Did you forget the success we have had in the 5th and even 7th rounds? We would not have Kam, Sweezy, or Sherman to name a few.

Hasselbeck wrote:Matt Flynn should be our starter. Wilson is nothing more than a backup and will never amount to anything in this league.

i dont think this makes sense.. baldwin brings a different skill set to the table than a lot of our receivers.. he runs excellent routes catches almost everything and reminds me of bobby engram with more potential. dont get all up in a tuff.. but i think if trading any receiver on our team makes sense it would be golden tate.. he has very similar skill set to percy.. just not as fast essentially. front office obviously already invested the team in percy so if somebody is gona go.. it would make sense that its a guy thats contract is gona be up soon and is going to want to be paid pretty well which we wont be able to afford.. get somethin for him while we can.. i dont think baldwin will cost nearly as much to sign as tate and just offers a different look.

on the other hand.. if baldwin goes to indy.. all his autographed rookie cards that i have will probably double in price nearly instantly.

Honestly, if I could get a 3rd for Baldwin, I'd do it and it would be an easy call.

-Baldwin enters next year as a #4 receiver, and if additions like Stephen Williams or draft picks (from a loaded WR class) do well, it's possible that Baldwin could end up on the bubble by the time he hits UFA in a couple years.

-Baldwin is a good receiver, but he's had trouble staying healthy.

-Baldwin is a "short" WR, and Seattle could soon be in a situation where too many of their receivers are 5'10" depending on who they draft.

-A 3rd round pick in this draft would probably look something like Ryan Swope or Stedman Bailey. Not only are they likely to be better receivers (in my opinion), but they are younger and cheaper for longer. That's why I'd be a little surprised if a team actually offered a 3rd for Baldwin. If they did, it's an easy "yes." I doubt it would happen, so this is all an exercise to see if it makes sense from our point of view, and probably meaningless.

On the flipside, if we keep Baldwin and RFA him next year, then lose him to free agency in 2015, by then he'd probably accrue enough contribution to be worth a decent comp pick in the formula. Comp picks are really hard to bank on- we got screwed out of a nice pick from Matt Hasselbeck thanks to Ben Hamilton, but in theory, just keeping Baldwin for a couple years will automatically get us a pick of some kind down the road.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:Some people would trade Russell Wilson if it meant getting us a good draft pick.

Besides Hasselbeck, who exactly?

Last edited by kearly on Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

T-Sizzle wrote:Did you forget the success we have had in the 5th and even 7th rounds? We would not have Kam, Sweezy, or Sherman to name a few.

Of course not, but when you say "to name a few", you mean "to name all of them"

Mark Legree, Dexter Davis, Jameson Konz, Korey Toomer, Lazarius Levingston. A slewth of backups to go with them. My point is that there's no guarantee of quality in the draft (and that gets emphasised even more in the later rounds), even with great evaluators of talent on the team. You can trade Baldwin for a 4th and maybe you pick up the next Geno Atkins or maybe you get the next EJ Wilson (taken 8 places apart). You trade away your proven players for low round draft picks when your team is aging, needs rebuilt or you can't afford the player any more.

Not because you think you might be able to get someone better. Doing that leads you to trade away Julian Peterson and draft Aaron Curry.

People simply have been spoiled by the success rate of our FO over the last 3 years and think they can pick Richard Sherman every time in the 5th round.

People are missing the point that the others (those that would trade Baldwin) are trying to make. I don't believe anyone is trying to say Baldwin sucks or that he's no good. Also no one is trying to say you're going to get equal value out of a pick.

But it's more like the Major League Baseball approach. Baldwin is only under contract 1 more year, possibly 2 if they decided to Tender him as a RFA but that may prove too rich for them to even do. Plus you're going to get more trade value out of a guy if a team knows they have control over him for 2 years rather than 1. Why not trade him and get what you can now? Especially since you absolutely do not need him (a 4th/5th WR is a total luxury). It'd be different if he was your #1 or even a starter, but he's not... Is he really that imperative to the success of this team that it's better to keep him and get nothing when he walks?

He's not going to start for this team, he's just not good enough. Harvin, Rice, and Tate are above him and you factor in that the team wants to run more 2 TE sets and will likely always have at least 1 TE on the field. Baldwin will never see the field.

He probably wants to move on himself to go somewhere he has an opportunity to start. Isn't it the classier thing to do rather than force him to stay here as depth when there are plenty more guys that can fill his role?

This team already has multiple guys with similar skill sets and that are best in the same position as Baldwin. You are only keeping 5 WR's, you want those 5 guys each to bring a unique talent if possible. You don't just keep a guy because he's good. It's funny that you guys got so pissed off they kept 2 kickers because they thought they were both talented but you're being hypocritical on this.

You wouldn't keep 5 QB's would you? - Even if they could all be starters???2 kickers? - but what if they are some of the best kickers in the league???2 punters? - but what if they are some of the best punters in the league???

So it comes down to these two main points:

1. Why not trade him for something rather than letting him walk for nothing after this year or next year?2. Why waste a roster spot for someone that will likely never see the field and doesn't offer a skill set that's not already offered by someone above him?

1. Why not trade him for something rather than letting him walk for nothing after this year or next year?2. Why waste a roster spot for someone that will likely never see the field and doesn't offer a skill set that's not already offered by someone above him?

1. Why do you assume he is going to walk? He will be restricted next year, and you silly little model leaves out the possibility of a second contract.

2. Go watch the 2008 season again. Really, do it. Then write a report on what a lack of roster depth does to a team.

sutz wrote:It's kind of funny as people line up on two sides of an issue like this. I equate it to the argument about throwing games to get better draft position.

One camp thinks of Baldwin as an important contributor to the offense, more valuable to us than to other teams and unlikely to draw trade interest strong enough to make trading him a good deal.

The other side values deals and trades and player moves more than wins, apparently. To them, a player like Baldwin is more a bargaining chip, someone whose trade value may never be higher that we should move for his off the field value. Just as some people focus heavily on the draft and everything seems to bend towards that day in April, some people consider the games more important and winning the most important thing.

From my point of view, a lot of people just want trades like this to happen, because they seem to get more out of player moves and drafting than they do out of the games themselves. I don't understand it, really. IMHO, Baldwin is too valuable to trade off just for the joy of moving players. We won't get enough in exchange to make sense to me. The goal is to keep the team together, not continually churning the roster any more than necessary.

Funny, I never mentioned the idea of trading Baldwin. Now, far be it from me to keep somebody from looking like a jackass if they have their heart set on showing that way, but you could do it with a little more direction so please keep me out of your crusading scenarios.

You are very short-sighted.

Funnily enough that's exactly what I think of your idea to trade Baldwin for a draft pick. And not exactly a 1st or 2nd rounder, but a 4th rounder aka the first "backup" round, where you hope the players you draft make the team as backups, and if they make it as a starter you've "hit".And whilst before I listed all WRs that have been taken in the past 5 years, I thought I'd use the last 3 years for this one since they're Pete Carroll and John Schneider selections.

Walter ThurmondEJ WilsonKris DurhamKJ WrightRobert TurbinJaye Howard

Those are the 6 picks they've made in the 4th round.1 starter. 1 perennially injured cornerback. 2 backups. 2 players no longer with the team.

That's the success rate of arguably the best drafting FO over the last 3 years in the 4th round. And you want to give up a proven commodity to roll the dice and hope we get a KJ Wright again?

1. Why not trade him for something rather than letting him walk for nothing after this year or next year?2. Why waste a roster spot for someone that will likely never see the field and doesn't offer a skill set that's not already offered by someone above him?

1. Why do you assume he is going to walk? He will be restricted next year, and you silly little model leaves out the possibility of a second contract.

2. Go watch the 2008 season again. Really, do it. Then write a report on what a lack of roster depth does to a team.

Why do you assuming he's going to want to stay as a backup? If he's so good he won't want to stay on as a backup, he'll want to go start somewhere. On the flip side if he's just OK with being a backup then I don't want him on my team.

I don't need to watch the 2008 Season. That was one of the all time Historic years for injuries of any team (especially for a position). There isn't a single team in the NFL that could weather that storm.

So should we keep a couple of extra kickers and punters "just in case"???

1. Why not trade him for something rather than letting him walk for nothing after this year or next year?2. Why waste a roster spot for someone that will likely never see the field and doesn't offer a skill set that's not already offered by someone above him?

1. Why do you assume he is going to walk? He will be restricted next year, and you silly little model leaves out the possibility of a second contract.

2. Go watch the 2008 season again. Really, do it. Then write a report on what a lack of roster depth does to a team.

Why do you assuming he's going to want to stay as a backup? If he's so good he won't want to stay on as a backup, he'll want to go start somewhere. On the flip side if he's just OK with being a backup then I don't want him on my team.

I don't need to watch the 2008 Season. That was one of the all time Historic years for injuries of any team (especially for a position). There isn't a single team in the NFL that could weather that storm.

So should we keep a couple of extra kickers and punters "just in case"???

Obo stayed as a backup. It has been done before.My point about 2008 was we went into that season with a lack of depth. You are proposing we reduce our depth. I dub thee Timmay.

You're the one wanting to hang onto yet another midget WR that we already have similar players to. If I am Ruskell then you are Mora...

You could possibly have to let go another "Michael Bennett" type guy for your "depth". You act like Baldwin went to a probowl or something. He's not even as good as the inconsistent Tate, what does that say?

Obo offered something on special teams. He was one of our best ST players. Baldwin is not.

DJrmb wrote:People are missing the point that the others (those that would trade Baldwin) are trying to make. I don't believe anyone is trying to say Baldwin sucks or that he's no good. Also no one is trying to say you're going to get equal value out of a pick.

But it's more like the Major League Baseball approach. Baldwin is only under contract 1 more year, possibly 2 if they decided to Tender him as a RFA but that may prove too rich for them to even do. Plus you're going to get more trade value out of a guy if a team knows they have control over him for 2 years rather than 1. Why not trade him and get what you can now? Especially since you absolutely do not need him (a 4th/5th WR is a total luxury). It'd be different if he was your #1 or even a starter, but he's not... Is he really that imperative to the success of this team that it's better to keep him and get nothing when he walks?

He's not going to start for this team, he's just not good enough. Harvin, Rice, and Tate are above him and you factor in that the team wants to run more 2 TE sets and will likely always have at least 1 TE on the field. Baldwin will never see the field.

He probably wants to move on himself to go somewhere he has an opportunity to start. Isn't it the classier thing to do rather than force him to stay here as depth when there are plenty more guys that can fill his role?

This team already has multiple guys with similar skill sets and that are best in the same position as Baldwin. You are only keeping 5 WR's, you want those 5 guys each to bring a unique talent if possible. You don't just keep a guy because he's good. It's funny that you guys got so pissed off they kept 2 kickers because they thought they were both talented but you're being hypocritical on this.

You wouldn't keep 5 QB's would you? - Even if they could all be starters???2 kickers? - but what if they are some of the best kickers in the league???2 punters? - but what if they are some of the best punters in the league???

So it comes down to these two main points:

1. Why not trade him for something rather than letting him walk for nothing after this year or next year?2. Why waste a roster spot for someone that will likely never see the field and doesn't offer a skill set that's not already offered by someone above him?

The best team is the team with the most luxury players. The reason more teams don't have 4 good WRs is because they're notoriously difficult to find, just ask If nobody needed a 4th WR why does no team carry less than 5 WRs?We trade Baldwin we'd just pick up another (probably inferior) or promote Kearse or Charly Martin.Last year when people were suggesting cutting Obo for the cap hit the cry was "he's a great special teamer". Well so is Baldwin. And a far far better receiver than Obo was. And a far cheaper player right now, even his extension would probably be along the lines of what Obo was getting (as a #4 receiver) last year.

And whilst trading him to add strength elsewhere because we have enough strength in WR now (funny how 2 weeks ago we needed a WR and now we have too many), where do you propose we strengthen instead? We ended the season with 40% of our wide receivers not on the roster on opening day.Whilst I understand the idea (but not the logic) of wanting guys with different skill sets, it means trading Baldwin to draft a receiver (who won't see the field, apparently) with a different skill set (curious as to what we're looking for, Baldwin's skill set seems to be converting third downs and catching deep passes. Curious as to what more you want from your receivers), and the likelihood is that unless that's a 2nd round pick there's a good chance your pick won't be as good as the player you draft away.

Maybe you want to use that pick to strengthen another position?

Of course, that's reasonable enough to suggest, it's not like we have one of the strongest rosters in the league

DJrmb wrote:You're the one wanting to hang onto yet another midget WR that we already have similar players to. If I am Ruskell then you are Mora...

You could possibly have to let go another "Michael Bennett" type guy for your "depth". You act like Baldwin went to a probowl or something. He's not even as good as the inconsistent Tate, what does that say?

Obo offered something on special teams. He was one of our best ST players. Baldwin is not.

Did Obo ever lead our team in catches and yards? I thought not. Size be damned, he is one of the best 5 receivers on our roster as of now. Go watch the drubbing of the Niners, Baldwin was stellar.

The day Baldwin is not one of the top 5 receivers on the roster, he is trade bait. Until then he is cheap depth.

DJrmb wrote:You're the one wanting to hang onto yet another midget WR that we already have similar players to. If I am Ruskell then you are Mora...

You could possibly have to let go another "Michael Bennett" type guy for your "depth". You act like Baldwin went to a probowl or something. He's not even as good as the inconsistent Tate, what does that say?

Obo offered something on special teams. He was one of our best ST players. Baldwin is not.

Did Obo ever lead our team in catches and yards? I thought not. Size be damned, he is one of the best 5 receivers on our roster as of now. Go watch the drubbing of the Niners, Baldwin was stellar.

The day Baldwin is not one of the top 5 receivers on the roster, he is trade bait. Until then he is cheap depth.

We'll have to agree to disagree. We're both still Seahawks fans though, right?

I am much more in the middle of this argument than what my posts indicate. I just felt like the people on the "trade Baldwin" side were getting really beat up so I spoke up.

I can see both sides. No way would I cut Baldwin... However I would trade him and take a look at some of the young guys we're bringing in to see if they could bring in a skill set Baldwin does not offer.

1. Why not trade him for something rather than letting him walk for nothing after this year or next year?2. Why waste a roster spot for someone that will likely never see the field and doesn't offer a skill set that's not already offered by someone above him?

1. Why do you assume he is going to walk? He will be restricted next year, and you silly little model leaves out the possibility of a second contract.

2. Go watch the 2008 season again. Really, do it. Then write a report on what a lack of roster depth does to a team.

Why do you assuming he's going to want to stay as a backup? If he's so good he won't want to stay on as a backup, he'll want to go start somewhere. On the flip side if he's just OK with being a backup then I don't want him on my team.

I don't need to watch the 2008 Season. That was one of the all time Historic years for injuries of any team (especially for a position). There isn't a single team in the NFL that could weather that storm.

So should we keep a couple of extra kickers and punters "just in case"???

You might pause to wonder though, why did all those wide recievers get hurt? Could it possibly because there was no depth and they played too many downs, thus leading to injury? Did they have to tkae too many reps in practice because there was nobody else worth a shit to do it, thus leading to injuries? I dunno. Shit happens. I'd like to have some sound back-ups in place so shit like that DON'T happen though, or if it does the effect won't be so severe.

WR isn't like quarterbacks or punters. It's one of those positions where we could line them up 5 wide if we wanted to and have the entire depth chart on the field. Doesn't it behoove us to make sure that we have the best talent possible as deep as possible? If we wanted to move him to bring in somebody who fits the scheme better then fine. Like others have been saying, we seem to have a plethora of 5'10" recievers so moving him in favor of another 6'5" guy makes sense systematically. but I don't think we should think about moving him just because we can get something for him. We already have something in him and we don't have a whole pile of holes that require emergency patching.

Baldwin is cheap and will be around for 2 years. Tate on the other hand is costing us about $330k more and will be up for FA next year and will get paid. Tate had a great year and had good chemistry with RW but it is very had to imagine we pay him a ton to stick around, with the depth at WR this year he could easily be upgraded by using a 2nd or 3rd that would bring more size, a cheaper contract, and be here longer to mesh with RW. Say Hunter, Williams, Hopkins, or Woods falls to the 2nd. I could see them being a big improvement over Tate, we cut salary, and get another draft pick. Even if we don't trade Tate I can see us drafting a player who will be replacing him this year that has the ability to fill in for Sidney Rice if he get's injured again. I dead the though of 5'10 Tate, 5'11 Harvin, and 5'11 Baldwin as our starting WR's. If there is one player I guarentee we will adress in the draft or UFA it will be to bring in at least 1 WR with size. Think Mike Williams, Braylon Ewards, T.O, Antonio Bryant. Those players were not on this team by accident. PC wants big WR's. Tate was supose to be what we now have with Harvin and he is now very expandable. If Tate can net is a 3rd next year to replace the one we traded for Harvin I'd be fine.

Don't get me wrong I don't want to trade Tate but I don't see he being as valuable to us as he would to another team anymore. He is redundant and taking up a roster spot for a player who has more potential to replace Rice who is a big cap hit. Looking at the future it would go against what the fans would want but it make a ton of cap sense and fits what I think they want to do in the future cap wise.

DJrmb wrote:Especially since you absolutely do not need him (a 4th/5th WR is a total luxury). It'd be different if he was your #1 or even a starter, but he's not... Is he really that imperative to the success of this team that it's better to keep him and get nothing when he walks?

Depth at WR is not a total luxury, especially when you consider that out of Harvin, Rice, and Tate's combined 13 NFL seasons, only four have been a full 16 games. If you get rid of Baldwin and one of those guys go down, you're suddenly in a position where WR becomes a weakness instead of the strength it is now.

DJrmb wrote:He's not going to start for this team, he's just not good enough. Harvin, Rice, and Tate are above him and you factor in that the team wants to run more 2 TE sets and will likely always have at least 1 TE on the field. Baldwin will never see the field.

Just because he won't start doesn't mean he won't see the field. Edwards and Obomanu each took more than 140 offensive snaps last year. Kearse and Martin each took more than 75 offensive snaps. With Wilson developing into an elite QB, I expect we will shift to a more passing oriented offense than last year, which makes those depth WRs even more important. A quality #4 like Baldwin would probably get a few hundred snaps that those depth guys combined for last year and would be more productive than those behind him on the depth chart. And that's not even considering what we might need from him if one of the top 3 guy gets hurt. It's also nice for depth WRs to be able to provide some special teams value, and Baldwin took 112 snaps on special teams last year, more than any of our other WRs.

DJrmb wrote:This team already has multiple guys with similar skill sets and that are best in the same position as Baldwin. You are only keeping 5 WR's, you want those 5 guys each to bring a unique talent if possible. You don't just keep a guy because he's good. It's funny that you guys got so pissed off they kept 2 kickers because they thought they were both talented but you're being hypocritical on this.

Keeping a second kicker isn't comparable at all to keeping a quality #4 WR. If your starting kicker goes down, you can find a comparable free agent replacement at any time. If a starting WR goes down midseason, you can't just grab a Baldwin level WR off the street to replace him.

DJrmb wrote:He probably wants to move on himself to go somewhere he has an opportunity to start. Isn't it the classier thing to do rather than force him to stay here as depth when there are plenty more guys that can fill his role?

If he requests a trade, I would be fine with the FO accommodating that request. As far as I know, Baldwin is happy here and plans to compete.

DJrmb wrote:So it comes down to these two main points:

1. Why not trade him for something rather than letting him walk for nothing after this year or next year?2. Why waste a roster spot for someone that will likely never see the field and doesn't offer a skill set that's not already offered by someone above him?

1. Why is it a given that he will walk when his contract is up? Tate's contract is up before Baldwin's and Rice might be asked to take a pay cut within the next couple years. If either of those players leave, Baldwin could be higher than #4 on the depth chart when it's time for a new deal. Even if he isn't, you're not “letting him walk for nothing” if he leaves after another two years. Aside from the probable compensation pick we would get for him, having a very good #4 WR for two years is value by itself. Players don't have to fit into the long-term plans to provide value.

2. Someone will take up the WR roster spots below Harvin, Rice, and Tate. I'd rather it be Baldwin than someone worse than him.

Tech Worlds wrote:Why do people always want to weakin a position that we finally have bolstered up?

Same goes for the qb position.

I suspect it is because they are used to the Seahawks being this good. I agree Baldwin is a stud ( remember the 1st AZ game and his teeth greeting knocked out ) and to have all this talent going to waste if Wilson goes down ? Makes no sense to me either , unless it is a killer offer

DJrmb wrote:You're the one wanting to hang onto yet another midget WR that we already have similar players to. If I am Ruskell then you are Mora...

You could possibly have to let go another "Michael Bennett" type guy for your "depth". You act like Baldwin went to a probowl or something. He's not even as good as the inconsistent Tate, what does that say?

Obo offered something on special teams. He was one of our best ST players. Baldwin is not.

Surely of all the teams in the league to be a fan of, as a Seahawk fan you should know that HEIGHT DOES NOT DEFINE YOUR SKILLSET.

Man, I like Baldwin I really do but you guys are making me be the bad guy...

Baldwin is not as good as some of you think. I swear some of you would put him in the RoH tomorrow if you could lol.

I'd rather keep Kearse, Bates, and maybe even Stephen Williams over Baldwin (if I could trade him for a mid round pick, like I said, I wouldn't cut Baldwin).

Also I will again reiterate that if Baldwin is anywhere near as good as you all think then why wouldn't he walk? If he doesn't and he has starting talent he's a chump. I know we're all Seahawks fans and I'm sure we would all say we'd stay a Seahawk as a backup but Baldwin doesn't have "fan loyalty" like that to Seattle and his agent definitely doesn't. He needs to, and will look out for his own best interest, which means going to a team to be a starter.

So you might as well get something for the guy if he's going to be gone. Of course assuming he'll be gone is just that "an assumption" but so is assuming he'll stay to be a backup...

DJrmb wrote:I'd rather keep Kearse, Bates, and maybe even Stephen Williams over Baldwin.

What?

I could maybe see Williams considering we just don't know what we have with him yet and Fitzgerald spoke highly of him....but Kearse and Bates.....?!

If Harvin goes down then we need Baldwin for that slot position. Nothing wrong with having a good 4th WR to throw in the mix. A backup QB hopefully never sees the field, a 4th WR will usually see the field plenty.

"If the opportunity presents itself, we're going to come get you. You’re part of the family. You're part of us. You helped us start this thing." - John Schneider before releasing Michael Robinson

DJrmb wrote:Man, I like Baldwin I really do but you guys are making me be the bad guy...

Baldwin is not as good as some of you think. I swear some of you would put him in the RoH tomorrow if you could lol.

I'd rather keep Kearse, Bates, and maybe even Stephen Williams over Baldwin (if I could trade him for a mid round pick, like I said, I wouldn't cut Baldwin).

Also I will again reiterate that if Baldwin is anywhere near as good as you all think then why wouldn't he walk? If he doesn't and he has starting talent he's a chump. I know we're all Seahawks fans and I'm sure we would all say we'd stay a Seahawk as a backup but Baldwin doesn't have "fan loyalty" like that to Seattle and his agent definitely doesn't. He needs to, and will look out for his own best interest, which means going to a team to be a starter.

So you might as well get something for the guy if he's going to be gone. Of course assuming he'll be gone is just that "an assumption" but so is assuming he'll stay to be a backup...

"Backup" at WR isn't the same as "Backup" at just about any other position in the game.Reasons he might prefer to stay at Seattle -His close friend from Stanford Richard ShermanThe other 31 teams in the league overlooked him, Seattle made him feel most wanted when he went undraftedHe thinks Seattle offers him the best opportunity to win a Superbowl RingHe believes he can be the number 1 receiver in Seattle

That last point is the most important and completely true. And not outwith the realms of possibility. In fact, I'd be surprised if there's a single player on the roster that doesn't think they're capable of being the number 1 guy on the depth chart. It's what Pete Carroll's entire philosophy is based on.

Baldwin clearly isn't as bad as you think. Even last year he had 29 receptions, which is only 16 less than Golden Tate managed, despite numerous injuries and less playing time.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J6rLwb78og

Plus he averages a TD a game against the 49ers (4 in 4). I'd keep anyone on the roster for that alone.

If Harvin goes down Tate can slide into that position better than anyone. How long have people been saying he's the poor mans Percy Harvin? Then you play an Outside WR in Tate's old spot not a slot guy. Thats why Kearse and Williams are guys I'd keep, they're both more of your Outside WR than Baldwin.

People seem to be low on Kearse here but he's shown some flashes and is one of the few guys that could play Sidney's role in a pinch.

DJrmb wrote:If Harvin goes down Tate can slide into that position better than anyone. How long have people been saying he's the poor mans Percy Harvin? Then you play an Outside WR in Tate's old spot not a slot guy. Thats why Kearse and Williams are guys I'd keep, they're both more of your Outside WR than Baldwin.

People seem to be low on Kearse here but he's shown some flashes and is one of the few guys that could play Sidney's role in a pinch.

Or you can just put Baldwin in the slot where he's effective rather than being forced to play a scrub on the outside.

Tech Worlds wrote:Why do people always want to weakin a position that we finally have bolstered up?

Same goes for the qb position.

I suspect it is because they are used to the Seahawks being this good. I agree Baldwin is a stud ( remember the 1st AZ game and his teeth greeting knocked out ) and to have all this talent going to waste if Wilson goes down ? Makes no sense to me either , unless it is a killer offer

I think where the disconnect is is that many of us believe that the talent will go to waste if Wilson goes down even with Flynn. It's far from consensus that he's a good QB that could take us anywhere.

Now trading Doug doesn't make sense to me unless we have a guy just as good ready to take his place, because I think having 3 reliable WRs besides Percy to allow him to move all over the field is a big deal. I really wouldn't be content with Kearse taking that role or anything.